Tazemetostat in patients with tumors with alterations in EZH2 or the SWI/SNF complex: Results from NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH trial Arm C (APEC1621C).
Authors: Susan N. Chi, Joanna S. Yi, P. Mickey Williams, Sinchita Roy-Chowdhuri, David R. Patton, Brent Coffey, Joel M. Reid, Jin Piao, Lauren Saguilig, Todd Allen Alonzo, Stacey L. Berg, Joyce Mhlanga, Elizabeth Fox, Douglas S. Hawkins, Margaret M. Mooney, Naoko Takebe, James V. Tricoli, Katherine A. Janeway, Nita Seibel, Donald Williams Parsons
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)

10009 Background: The NCI-Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial assigns patients, age 1-21 years, with relapsed or refractory solid tumors, lymphomas, and histiocytic disorders to phase 2 treatment arms based on genetic alterations detected in their tumor. Arm C evaluated the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat in patients whose tumors harbored EZH2 hotspot mutations or SMARCB1 or SMARCA4 loss by immunohistochemistry. Methods: Tazemetostat 1200 mg/m 2 /dose PO BID was administered to the first 13 patients; after study amendment due to second malignancy noted in the pediatric phase 1 trial, the dose for patients with non-CNS tumors was reduced to 520 mg/m 2 /dose PO BID. Patients were treated for 28-day cycles until PD or intolerable toxicity (max 26 cycles); response assessments occurred every 2-3 cycles. Primary and secondary endpoints were ORR and PFS, respectively. Results: Twenty eligible and evaluable patients (median age 5 years; range 1-21) were enrolled between Nov 2017 and Sept 2020. SMARCB1 loss was detected in 16/20 (80%) tumors: atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (ATRT, n = 8), malignant rhabdoid tumor (MRT, n = 4), epithelioid sarcoma (ES, n = 2), renal medullary carcinoma (RMC, n = 1) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, n = 1). EZH2 mutations were identified in 3/20 (15%) tumors: Ewing sarcoma (n = 2), ependymoma (n = 1). One patient with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) had SMARCA4 loss. Centrally reviewed, one objective response (PR) was observed (LCH [SMARCA4], 26 cycles at 1200 mg/m 2 /dose BID). Five other patients had a best response of stable disease (ES [SMARCB1], 26 cycles, 520 mg/m 2 /dose BID; ATRT [SMARCB1], 13 cycles,1200 mg/m 2 /dose BID; RMC [SMARCB1], 12 cycles, 520 mg/m 2 /dose BID; ES [SMARCB1], 9 cycles,1200 mg/m 2 /dose BID; ATRT [SMARCB1], 6 cycles, 1200 mg/m 2 /dose BID). No other patients received &gt; 2 cycles. Six-month PFS was 35% (95% CI 15.7%, 55.2%); OS was 45% (95% CI 23.1%, 64.7%). Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with AEs previously reported with tazemetostat, including anemia, thrombocytopenia, elevated LFTs, abdominal pain, dyspnea, infection, and intracranial hemorrhage. Three patients had bromide elevations. Conclusions: In this cohort of children with relapsed tumors harboring EZH2 mutations or loss of SMARCB1 or SMARCA4, tazemetostat did not produce significant objective responses (ORR: 5%, 90% CI 1%, 20%). However, we observed prolonged stable disease of &gt; 6 months (range: 6-26 cycles) in 33% of patients across different histologic diagnoses, including two patients who received the full two years of study therapysuggesting a potential effect of tazemetostat on disease stabilization. Future studies will incorporate tazemetostat in combination with chemotherapy or immunologic agents for patients with these aggressive and difficult to treat tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT03213665.